Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Animals with bad design.
Aaron
Member (Idle past 3959 days)
Posts: 65
From: Kent, WA
Joined: 12-14-2010


Message 31 of 204 (601874)
01-24-2011 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Drosophilla
01-24-2011 1:55 PM


Re: Re-think needed?
"why would the disaster area we call 'life on earth' be a work of God? He should hold his head in shame at the 99.99% species failure rate and the trillions upon trillions of deaths over the ages - imagine the uncountable suffering (or do you not believe that 'lesser' animals can suffer pain or anguish?) that has gone on over the aeons. Why produce a god-awful mess like our ecosystem when he could have ‘magiked’ the whole thing into perfection from the get go?"
Disaster area? Talk about a loaded sentiment.
Is that what you think when you go outside, go scuba diving, or hike in the mountains? What a mess!?
Certainly groups of animals have died off. There are species of fish that are not around today. However, as I said before, I believe God created each creature with the ability to diversify, adapt, and spread out - the core of speciation. If one fish branch dies off, that doesn't mean the original fish branch has gone extinct. Besides the dinosaurs, I can't think of many extinct species that don't have an extant branch.
Regarding animal suffering - you are looking at it from a human perspective. You are reading your ideas of human suffering into the animal kingdom.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Drosophilla, posted 01-24-2011 1:55 PM Drosophilla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Briterican, posted 01-24-2011 7:40 PM Aaron has not replied
 Message 42 by Coragyps, posted 01-25-2011 4:51 AM Aaron has not replied
 Message 43 by Drosophilla, posted 01-25-2011 8:12 AM Aaron has replied
 Message 44 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-25-2011 9:05 AM Aaron has replied
 Message 45 by barbara, posted 01-25-2011 4:27 PM Aaron has not replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 32 of 204 (601875)
01-24-2011 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Aaron
01-24-2011 7:27 PM


The anthropomorphic pot calling the kettle black
Aaron writes:
you are looking at it from a human perspective. You are reading your ideas of human suffering into the animal kingdom.
Just as you are reading your ideas of life based on your existence as a human on this tiny world into the universe as a whole. Don't accuse others of anthropomorphising when theists do it on a galactic scale.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Aaron, posted 01-24-2011 7:27 PM Aaron has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 33 of 204 (601876)
01-24-2011 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Aaron
01-24-2011 6:38 PM


Re: deism
Hi Aaron, thanks.
I don't think every creature on earth looks exactly like it did when it was first created.
Sorry, I missed where that was part of the previous discussion. Can you point that out in what I said?
quote:
"So you would agree that the best conclusion regarding design would be that it starts with the creation of a universe set up so that the universe would behave according to what appear to be natural laws, where life would occur and then evolve ... and then leave the system alone for billions of years, having already done the necessary design work?"
The evidence shows that organisms evolve at different times in different places, and that all organisms are part of a continual process of evolution from the time life first appeared on this planet, 3.5 billion years ago.
I believe God endued each creature with the genetic ability to adapt to certain environments.
Curiously, what you believe has no ability to alter reality in any way.
What endows (I presume this is what you meant by endued) individual organisms with the genetic ability to adapt to new ecologies is mutation. Unfortunately, for your belief, mutation is random and not directed.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Aaron, posted 01-24-2011 6:38 PM Aaron has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Aaron, posted 01-24-2011 8:00 PM RAZD has replied

  
Aaron
Member (Idle past 3959 days)
Posts: 65
From: Kent, WA
Joined: 12-14-2010


Message 34 of 204 (601877)
01-24-2011 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Briterican
01-24-2011 5:07 PM


Briterican said:
"If God has designed these systems which quite often result in the prolonged suffering of one party or another, shame on him."
What do you mean by prolonged suffering? An animal that gets eaten alive? Would you feel better if an animal being eaten didn't feel any pain? Would the lack of pain receptors make the system perfect? Or the ability to escape from any prospect of pain? (which I refer back to my opening comments)
Do you think the zebra that gets killed thinks to himself "why was I ever born?"
What moral standard are you using to suggest that an animal eating another animal is a bad thing?
Again, I think you are reading into it from your human emotional perspectives.
"which is unfounded, unsupported opinion, I found your comments interesting."
The point I made fits within orthodox theology. People have been writing about these types of theological issues for centuries - so it is more than my opinion. You may not agree with the theology as a whole - but the promise of a world yet to come is a part of the complete creation package.
However, I know this is entering the theological realm, which is a side trail.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Briterican, posted 01-24-2011 5:07 PM Briterican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Briterican, posted 01-24-2011 7:49 PM Aaron has not replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 35 of 204 (601879)
01-24-2011 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Aaron
01-24-2011 7:43 PM


Aaron writes:
Again, I think you are reading into it from your human emotional perspectives.
I say again... you are on no ground to accuse others of anthropomorphising when theists do it on an intergalactic scale. The theist notion that some divine being cares about us on this tiny little speck of a grain of dust in a vast sea of stars is arrogant beyond belief (yes, that is my opinion). Perhaps you'd care to re-examine your own stance on divinity, thinking about it from the perspective that you are arrogantly presuming that mankind is somehow at the centre of the cosmos. Who is created in whose image?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Aaron, posted 01-24-2011 7:43 PM Aaron has not replied

  
Aaron
Member (Idle past 3959 days)
Posts: 65
From: Kent, WA
Joined: 12-14-2010


Message 36 of 204 (601880)
01-24-2011 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Granny Magda
01-24-2011 4:16 PM


"But that's not quite the whole story is it? Some whales have the vestigial remains of pelvic bones and even femurs, despite having no obvious rear limbs. Take a look at this image, which shows the skeleton of a whale, with clearly visible limb remnants. Note that they are not attached to the rest of the skeleton."
I've seen similar images.
This is getting back to atavism. Just because whales have hind bones that bear a resemblance to mammal pelvic bones - doesn't have to mean that they are.
An important question to ask is if these bones have a function.
Here's a clip of an email from James Mead, the Curator of Marine Mammals at the Smithsonian Institution:
"The pelvic bones of whales serve as attachments for the musculature associated with the penis in males and its homologue, the clitoris, in females. The muscle involved is known as the ischiocavernosus and is quite a powerful muscle in males. It serves as a retractor muscle for the penis in copulation and probably provides the base for lateral movements of the penis. The mechanisms of penile motion are not well understood in whales. The penis seems to be capable of a lot of independent motion, much like the trunk of an elephant. How much of this is mediated by the ischiocavernosus is not known.
In females the anatomical parts are smaller and more diffuse. I would imagine that there is something homologous to the perineal muscles in man and tetrapods, which affect the entire pelvic area - the clitoris, vagina and anus.
The pelvic rudiments also serve as origins for the ischiocaudalis muscle, which is a ventral muscle that inserts on the tips of the chevron bones of the spinal column and acts to flex the tail in normal locomotion."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Granny Magda, posted 01-24-2011 4:16 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Taq, posted 01-25-2011 1:23 AM Aaron has not replied
 Message 41 by Granny Magda, posted 01-25-2011 3:55 AM Aaron has replied

  
Aaron
Member (Idle past 3959 days)
Posts: 65
From: Kent, WA
Joined: 12-14-2010


Message 37 of 204 (601882)
01-24-2011 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by RAZD
01-24-2011 7:41 PM


Re: deism
Razd said:
"Can you point that out in what I said?"
It was just a general statement to let you know my point of view.
"What endows (I presume this is what you meant by endued) individual organisms with the genetic ability to adapt to new ecologies is mutation. Unfortunately, for your belief, mutation is random and not directed. "
I meant endued.(Endued - definition of endued by The Free Dictionary)
Some mutations is random, some is not.
This is an interesting topic I've been studying. It would warrant a new thread.
Consider epigenetics to start - large behavioral and structural changes in direct response to environmental factors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 01-24-2011 7:41 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Taq, posted 01-25-2011 1:27 AM Aaron has not replied
 Message 55 by RAZD, posted 01-29-2011 6:07 PM Aaron has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 38 of 204 (601925)
01-25-2011 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Aaron
01-24-2011 7:05 PM


Hi, Aaron.
Aaron writes:
I don't think God would "magically" make a system able to work a certain way that defies the physics of the system.
But God gets to decide what the physics are! If He had designed the system such that photosynthesis was not energetically limited, then the lack of energetic limits to photosynthesis would not defy the physics of the system.
You have to assume that the system must work the way it does in order to make this into an argument that the system must be the way it is. This assumption is not justified when we posit that the designer is responsible for the system working the way it does.
-----
Aaron writes:
Do you consider the whale "pelvis" to be two extra limbs?
By definition, a limb is an external body part.
There's really no need to get this technical about limbs: it was just a simple example of a greater point.
When I brought up limb number, I was thinking more along the lines of this:
Six-legged stances are more dynamically stable (stable during movement) than four-legged stances, so it seems that there would have been at least some situations under which a Designer would have preferred a six-legged mammal over a four-legged mammal.
And, in the bird example was thinking in this direction:
Many birds would benefit from being able to bear live young (e.g. penguins), so it seems that there would be situations under which the Designer would have preferred a live-bearing bird to an egg-laying bird.
The point I was trying to illustrate is that nature has many examples of strong correlations between sets of characteristics that don't seem to have a real reason to be correlated with each other. It seems that the characteristics of an organism are determined more by a sort of taxonomic template (e.g., "mammal" or "bird") than by a functional template (e.g. "herbivore" or "scavenger").
Everything we know about designers suggests that they design things for their function.
Everything we know about biology suggests that they are not designed around their function, but around their allegiance to specific categories.
-----
Aaron writes:
The question goes back to why God would create creatures that have limits.
The "bad design" argument isn't that every trait of every organism should be a superlative adaptation without limitations, but that function, rather than taxonomy, should dictate design.
I'll put it in familiar terms. The common saying is that form follows function; but, in biology, function seems to follow form.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Aaron, posted 01-24-2011 7:05 PM Aaron has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 39 of 204 (601926)
01-25-2011 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Aaron
01-24-2011 7:54 PM


An important question to ask is if these bones have a function.
That's a poor question. A burned out TV can function as a boat anchor, but that doesn't mean it is designed to be a boat anchor. A broken keyboard can act as a hammer, but that doesn't mean that it is designed to be a hammer. A pelvis is designed to carry the weight of a tetrapod.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Aaron, posted 01-24-2011 7:54 PM Aaron has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 40 of 204 (601927)
01-25-2011 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Aaron
01-24-2011 8:00 PM


Re: deism
Some mutations is random, some is not.
Which mutations are observed to be non-random with respect to fitness?
consider epigenetics to start - large behavioral and structural changes in direct response to environmental factors.
Epigenetics does not involve mutation of DNA sequence. On top of that, epigenetics can not explain the differences seen between species (e.g. the differences between humans and chimps).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Aaron, posted 01-24-2011 8:00 PM Aaron has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 41 of 204 (601938)
01-25-2011 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Aaron
01-24-2011 7:54 PM


Hi Aaron,
This is getting back to atavism. Just because whales have hind bones that bear a resemblance to mammal pelvic bones - doesn't have to mean that they are.
What? Are you saying that they are not pelvic bones? That's a new one.
This is a doomed line of argument. They absolutely are pelvic bones and femurs too. They are exactly the right shape and they are in exactly the right place. Trying to pretend that these are not limb bones is futile.
An important question to ask is if these bones have a function.
No, that is an irrelevant question. A vestigial feature need not be devoid of function to be counted as vestigial.
The important observation here is that what appeared to be a real oddity, an exception to the nested hierarchy, in the form of a two limbed tetrapod, in fact fits right into the evolutionary picture. It has hind legs, just buried underneath the surface. Even you have to acknowledge the importance of this; whales have legs, their ancestors had rudimentary legs and their ancestors had fully functional legs. This is all plainly visible in the fossil record. This fits the ToE like a glove.
Here's a clip of an email from James Mead, the Curator of Marine Mammals at the Smithsonian Institution:
Is that the same James Mead who has a Ph.D in evolutionary biology and writes papers with titles like Considerations Of Anatomy, Morphology, Evolution, and Function for Narwhal Dentition? I doubt that he is a big fan of special creation. Perhaps Mr Jim Pamplin (to whom Mead's comments above are addressed) might have mentioned that he was intending to use Mead's response afor creationist apologetics. Then Mead's comments might have directly addressed whale evolution. Of course, that would not have had Pamplin's desired effect, as Mead would simply have responded in the affirmative, that yes, whales evolved from tetrapods.
I also note that Mead seems to have no doubt that these structures are pelvic bones. That rather undermines your earlier comments to the effect that they just look like pelvic bones. Nor do Mead's comments address the presence of vestigial femurs in some whale species.
It really doesn't matter though if the pelvic bones have a function or not. They are limbs! Hind limbs, stranded in the middle of a creature that needs no hind limbs. I can accept that the musculature mentioned above needs to be anchored to something, but there is no reason why that should resemble a limb. There is no reason why an omnipotent god need design this way. He could have put any shape of bone in there. It is easily conceivable that he might have found a better design choice than the pelvis. Instead, we see a design that appears to have been cobbled together out of pre-existing parts. That's how evolution designs things! It is not what we would expect to see from a designer working from a blank slate.
Again, we are back to the same problem that I have mentioned before. We are left wondering why God would choose to design something that looks so very clearly like the handiwork of evolution. The only consistent explanation is these structures really did evolve. Either that, or they were created by a deceitful god, who wanted to hide his presence by making all the life-forms he creates indistinguishable from the fruits of evolution.
Mutate and Survive

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Aaron, posted 01-24-2011 7:54 PM Aaron has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Aaron, posted 01-31-2011 8:38 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 42 of 204 (601940)
01-25-2011 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Aaron
01-24-2011 7:27 PM


Re: Re-think needed?
Besides the dinosaurs, I can't think of many extinct species that don't have an extant branch.
Hmm. Birds are an extant branch of one of the major groups of dinosaurs. And I can think of a dozen or so lines of critters that apparently died out completely- triconodonts, multituburculates, trilobites, graptolites, most of the Ediacaran fauna.....
And while we are discussing whales, what about the tooth buds that baleen whales grow and then resorb as fetuses? Are those something that just look like the tooth buds in toothed-whale embryos, but are actually something completely different? Isn't it a bit more parsimonious to decide that baleen whales had toothed ancestors? Particularly when we have fossils of Aetiocetus, which has teeth and baleen?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Aaron, posted 01-24-2011 7:27 PM Aaron has not replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3641 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


Message 43 of 204 (601951)
01-25-2011 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Aaron
01-24-2011 7:27 PM


Re: Re-think needed?
Disaster area? Talk about a loaded sentiment.
Is that what you think when you go outside, go scuba diving, or hike in the mountains? What a mess!?
Not a loaded sentiment at all. If, as you maintain, God created everything around us - the super designer of all, then he should be the best engineer in the business. Imagine the future fortunes of a human car designer who proudly boasted that 99.99% of all his designs were doomed to eventual failure. How long do you think he'd hold a licence to design?
When I "go outside, scuba dive or look at the mountains" my thoughts are something like "Isn't it amazing we live in this world where evolution produces the effects we see - not by conscious effort - just by natural laws unfolding as they do." Why should there have to be this 'God' tag attached to everything? There's not a shred of evidence for it at all.
Why does water beautifully fill the exact shape of the pothole in which it collects? Is the pothole made exactly for the water? Or does the water conform to the existing pothole? Does life on earth 'fit' its planet because - like the water it conforms naturally? ( Unless you think God is moulding the water to fit the pothole - which I wouldn't be surprised if you do think that - the theologian Richard Swinbourne believes that God is controlling every proton, electron, neutron - hell even the more basic quarks for that matter- in the entire universe - all at the same time - that's some GOD !!)
Certainly groups of animals have died off.
By "groups' do you mean "species"? If so, the number of species that have died off conservatively measure into the tens of millions - one hell of a design failure rate I'd say. If 'group' doesn't mean 'species' for you be aware that this is an old EvC topic and you might want to visit other threads where this is discussed.
Regarding animal suffering - you are looking at it from a human perspective. You are reading your ideas of human suffering into the animal kingdom.
Ah - so you DO believe that animals can't suffer pain or distress.....how interesting!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Aaron, posted 01-24-2011 7:27 PM Aaron has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Aaron, posted 01-29-2011 3:59 AM Drosophilla has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 44 of 204 (601956)
01-25-2011 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Aaron
01-24-2011 7:27 PM


Re: Re-think needed?
Besides the dinosaurs, I can't think of many extinct species that don't have an extant branch.
May i congratulate you on your broad and deep ignorance of biology. With that amount of unfounded ignorance to your credit, a lucrative career in writing creationist pamphlets awaits you.
Of course, you will have to be a complete fucking moron, but on the other hand it's easy work and the money's good.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Aaron, posted 01-24-2011 7:27 PM Aaron has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Aaron, posted 01-30-2011 12:26 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
barbara
Member (Idle past 4802 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 45 of 204 (602027)
01-25-2011 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Aaron
01-24-2011 7:27 PM


Re: Re-think needed?
99.9% failure rate for species extinction does not leave much room for descent with modification that is currently believed right now.
What is interesting is the 99.9% extinct is based on the fossil evidence. Fossils are rare so this percentage is false. Nobody has any idea of how much biodiversity there actually was in history. Nobody knows if the fossils represent true extinction or that they changed in appearance in descent with modification.
No one can tell us if any of the species that are alive today are the actual direct descent with modification to those specific fossils or a result from a split from another species.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Aaron, posted 01-24-2011 7:27 PM Aaron has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Drosophilla, posted 01-25-2011 6:37 PM barbara has not replied
 Message 47 by Drosophilla, posted 01-25-2011 6:37 PM barbara has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024